Forrester Ketley & Co v Brent [2008] EWHC 3150 (Ch) (19 December 2008)

Forrester Ketley & Co v Brent [2008] EWHC 3150 (Ch) (19 December 2008)

The Defendant's applications for permission to make further applications under the extended civil restraint order were refused because none had a realistic prospect of success and there was no other sufficient reason to grant permission. The inclusion of 'taking steps in any court' in the civil restraint order was within the court's power and not unjust. The Defendant's grounds for setting aside the statutory demand were without merit. The bankruptcy proceedings were ordered to be transferred to the High Court with both parties' consent. Costs were awarded to the Claimant.

Citation
[2008] EWHC 3150 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: Forrester Ketley & Co; Defendant: David Brent
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
19 December 2008
Procedural Posture
Civil / Application for Permission to Make Further Applications Under Extended Civil Restraint Order
Outcome
Applications refused; costs awarded to Claimant; bankruptcy proceedings transferred to High Court.
Legal Topics
Civil Restraint Orders, Permission to Apply, Statutory Demand, Bankruptcy Proceedings, Case Management, Costs Orders
Civil Procedure Insolvency Costs Civil Restraint Orders Permission to Apply Statutory Demand Bankruptcy Proceedings Case Management +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Forrester Ketley & Co

Claimant

David Brent

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Application for Permission to Make Further Applications Under Extended Civil Restraint Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Defendant should be granted permission to make 53 further applications under the extended civil restraint order
  2. 2 Whether the inclusion of 'taking steps in any court' in the civil restraint order was ultra vires or unjust
  3. 3 Whether the Defendant should be permitted to apply to set aside the statutory demand

Ratio Decidendi

The Defendant's applications for permission to make further applications under the extended civil restraint order were refused because none had a realistic prospect of success and there was no other sufficient reason to grant permission. The inclusion of 'taking steps in any court' in the civil restraint order was within the court's power and not unjust. The Defendant's grounds for setting aside the statutory demand were without merit. The bankruptcy proceedings were ordered to be transferred to the High Court with both parties' consent. Costs were awarded to the Claimant.

Court Disposition

Applications refused; costs awarded to Claimant; bankruptcy proceedings transferred to High Court.

Orders

  • Permission to make 53 further applications refused.
  • Permission to apply to discharge civil restraint orders refused.